OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Lehi City Council Meeting – July 22, 2025

Meeting PortalTuesday, July 22, 2025
BodyLehi, Utah
SessionMeeting Portal
DateTuesday, July 22, 2025
StatusFILED
Video Record

STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE

Transcript — Verbatim
0:18

I know they're they're on their way, they're at an earlier meeting we had at 445, so uh they should be here shortly.

0:25

Uh so I'd like to welcome everybody to our city council meeting.

0:28

The date is July 22nd, uh 2025.

0:32

Uh it is 541.

0:36

And uh we do, as a matter of roll call.

0:38

I mentioned we do have uh three of our council members here, the two that are not should be here shortly, and I I I anticipate that will happen.

0:46

Uh we do like to start out with uh an opening prayer, and I ask Chris if he would do that today.

0:55

Our dear Heavenly Father, we come before thee this evening with gratitude in our hearts for the uh blessings that those granted unto us, and we thank you, Father, for the opportunity to gather together as a community and as a council to discuss the issues that are before us this evening.

1:10

And we are thankful, Father, for the opportunity to discuss and to give insight and to uh make these decisions.

1:17

And we thank thee for um the opportunity that some have had to go to the reservoir this night and to review that and pray that we'll all be able to have a chance to go see that wonderful uh facility and the progress that's being made.

1:29

We pray, Father, for our first responders and their families and for our military and their families as well.

1:34

We pray that thou may watch over them and bless them.

1:36

And we ask thee to bless those around the country who've been impacted significantly by natural disasters and floods, and pray that thou be with them and and bless us in our area, Father, to show our gratitude for that which we have and always have a willing heart to serve one another.

1:52

We pray thy spirit to be with us this evening and do so in the name of the son Jesus Christ.

1:57

Thank you very much.

1:58

Okay, we have three uh presentations today.

2:00

Item 2.1 is the presentation on pressurized irrigation uh water rights, and this is mostly just for discussion right now, correct?

2:10

Yes, we're really preliminary, and I'll invite Fred Billpott to come up.

2:13

He has a short presentation.

2:15

So you know, we talk about this a lot where uh the state a couple of years ago was required us to meter all pressurized irrigation connections.

2:23

Um and we're working on doing that.

2:25

I think out of the 14,000 connect unmetered connections that we had, I think they've probably gotten a little over half of those done.

2:32

Um but there's also a process of getting radials installed so that they'll read and getting those into our software system.

2:38

So we're still very early in the process.

2:41

Uh what Fred's waiting for now is uh to get for us to get some good data and get some good reads over a period of time so we can do some analysis.

2:49

So Fred Philpot is with uh the firm of uh Lewis Robertson and Burningham, and he's doing our uh rate study to help us get this figured out.

3:03

Um now his computer's fried.

3:08

Yep.

3:08

And while he's working on that, let me ask you a question, Dean, because we have what roughly 27,000 units in town.

3:16

Yeah, yeah, maybe not maybe not quite that many.

3:20

I don't know.

3:21

Less Alison, no, no, 18,000.

3:25

18,000.

3:26

Is there a lot of homes that not on the Nox 27 Matt Howard?

3:32

Yeah.

3:33

And so every connection has a power meter, but sometimes some are masters.

3:39

That makes sense.

3:40

I was just trying to understand you know how many we were actually installing.

3:44

Yeah, because I told somebody the other day, you know, what I thought the number of homes were, but you're right.

3:49

If they're master meter, we're not installing that many.

3:52

Okay.

3:53

Um so what I wanted Fred to come and just introduce this.

3:57

Again, we don't really have data or there's nothing really to propose, but he's gonna show what some other cities have done.

4:02

Alpine's already in the process uh already does this, Spanish Fork, Springville, Saratoga Springs already do.

4:09

And so he's gonna, and there's just some variety with this.

4:12

So what I'm interested in, if you have opinions now, because there's sometimes you can see there's a bit of a trade-off between having a simple rate that's easy to understand or understand versus having a more complicated rate that is maybe more fair, but might be different, more difficult to understand.

4:30

I'm also curious to know if you have any opinion on you know do you think it makes sense to have a certain portion of the city, get that really good and comfortable where we feel and then implement through the rest of the city or try to do the whole city at once, and the only reason it's scarier to do the whole city at once is because if there's something that we've missed on the study and it's easier to fix it if it's a subset of that rather than the whole city.

4:56

And there's not really a right or wrong answer.

4:58

Again, we're not looking for a decision or anything.

5:00

I just want Fred to introduce some of this and get any any thoughts that you had, because this is going to be a process that's going to be go ongoing for a couple of years.

5:09

I'll turn it over to Fred.

5:11

Thanks, Dean.

5:12

Sorry for the delay.

5:14

So the three items that I wanted to talk about, as Dean summarized, is to go over uh what your current rate structure looks like.

5:20

Uh then talk about a recent study we did with a neighbor community with the city of Alpine, and then look at some comparable communities and then have that discussion.

5:29

Allow you to provide some feedback, and that will allow me and my team to go back and build scenarios that will be helpful for you as you evaluate how you would like to implement uh uh rate changes uh relative to the secondary water system.

5:44

So right now you have a uh uh rate that is uh charge per connection uh based on lot size, and then you have some uh uh uh elements of your rate relative to a shareholder charge.

5:57

Um that was similar to Alpine, where there were essentially legacy rates relative to those that um held water rights or other elements relative to the secondary system, and there was a unique rate for those types of customers.

6:11

As we look at um a comparable, again, looking at Alpine, what we did uh for this community is they hadn't looked at their rates for quite a while and had several objectives that they wanted to evaluate.

6:23

We completed this study in 2022.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Water And Wastewater Management██████████████████████████████████████38%
Affordable Housing███████████████15%
Economic Development███████████11%
Engineering And Infrastructure███████████11%
Zoning Regulations█████5%
Community Engagement███3%
Planning and Zoning██2%
Arts And Culture██2%
Sustainable Development██2%
Summary of Proceedings

Lehi City Council Meeting – July 22, 2025

The Lehi City Council met on July 22, 2025, in a pre-council session starting at 5:30 PM and a regular session at 7:00 PM. The meeting included presentations on pressurized irrigation water rates, a financial impact analysis of Thanksgiving Point, and a draft SHAR overlay ordinance. The council approved several resolutions, including agreements with UDOT for infrastructure projects, a construction contract for the Lambert Basin Storm Drain, and a watershed agreement with the NRCS. A grading permit for Upper Inverness was also approved. Citizens expressed concerns about the SHAR ordinance, water conservation, and aquifer depletion.

Consent Calendar

  • Approve Purchase Orders (Item 4.1): Approved unanimously, including PO Index, Wheeler Machine PO, and Stuart C Irby Co. for $315,859.89.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • James Harrison: Expressed concerns about the SHAR overlay ordinance, specifically deed restriction enforcement, government price controls, and potential unfairness to taxpayers versus developers. He advocated for free-market solutions.
  • Tyson Hodges: Pointed out unsightly canal weeds near a strata development and noted that the SHAR proposal lacked time restrictions on affordability after the first homebuyer, allowing potential flipping.
  • Bradley Anderson (38-year resident): Described the drying up of Cedar Hollow Pond and a significant drop in the aquifer (80 feet lost in a 180-foot well since 1980). He attributed this to canal piping and development, urging water conservation.
  • Rachel Freeman: Raised transparency concerns about the SHAR ordinance affecting land values and echoed water table depletion worries.
  • Larrel Stevens: Asked about gray water systems and rain barrels, noting current code restrictions and advocating for better water reuse options.

Discussion Items

  • Pressurized Irrigation Water Rates (Item 2.1): Fred Philpot (LRB) presented rate structure options based on studies from Alpine, Saratoga Springs, Spanish Fork, and Springville. Discussion focused on balancing equity vs. simplicity, conservation incentives, and a phased rollout (starting with a subset of the city). Council favored a tiered usage rate with a flat base fee and supported a trial period using real data collection before full implementation.
  • Thanksgiving Point Financial Impact Analysis (Item 2.2): Jason Burningham (LRB) and McKay Christensen presented findings: $8.3 billion total economic output over 25 years, $403 million in tax revenues to Lehi City ($2.2 million annually), Utah County ($3.2 million), and the state ($10.8 million). Key revenue sources were sales tax. Thanksgiving Point also provides $650,000 in annual community benefits (free admissions, park discounts). Council noted the impact as the most significant economic driver in Utah County.
  • Draft SHAR Overlay Ordinance (Item 2.3): Brittany from Planning presented the revised ordinance, including a 50% density bonus, minimum lot sizes (6,000 sq ft for attainable units), maximum floor area (1,200 sq ft without basement, 1,000 sq ft with unfinished basement), and deed restrictions for owner occupancy in perpetuity. Setbacks were reduced to 5 ft on one side and 12 ft on the other (with garage). Council debated land valuation impacts, enforcement of deed restrictions, and HOA fees. No decision was made; the discussion will continue as the ordinance moves through DRC, planning commission, and public hearing.
  • Water Wise Yard of the Month (Regular Session Item 2.1): Todd presented the award to Joshua and Crystal (address: 2770 N 900 E) for their water-wise landscape featuring native plants, limited turf, a chicken coop, and a rain-harvesting system. They noted difficulty in implementing gray water systems.
  • Administrative Reports: Heather announced a donated Steinway Grand Piano for the new library/civic center. Chief Paul highlighted successful inter-department cooperation in resolving a dog bite incident using park cameras to identify the owner, avoiding rabies vaccination.

Key Outcomes

  • Consent Agenda: Approved unanimously.
  • Item 5 (Ordinance #44-2025): Postponed to a later meeting due to complexity.
  • Item 6 – Upper Inverness Grading Permit (693.4 acres): Approved with DRC and planning commission comments; completion in 24–36 months. Motion: Chris, second: Heather; unanimous.
  • Item 7 – Resolution #2025-49 (Lambert Basin Storm Drain, Rino Excavating): Approved. Low bid among 13 bidders. Motion: Paul, second: Paige; unanimous (5-0).
  • Item 8 – Resolution #2025-50 (Master Agreement with UDOT for 2100 N): Approved. Sets design criteria for design-build contractor. Motion: Chris, second: Heather; unanimous.
  • Item 9 – Resolution #2025-51 (Supplemental Agreement with UDOT for 2100 N): Approved. Authorizes stubbing of master-planned utilities across the freeway; costs to be determined by design-build low bid. Motion: Heather, second: Chris; unanimous.
  • Item 10 – Resolution #2025-53 (Trail connection through Holbrook Park 2): Approved. Betterment for trail from Jordan River bridge to Waterbury Drive. Motion: Paul, second: Michelle; unanimous.
  • Item 11 – Resolution #2025-54 (Access road from 2100 N/Thanksgiving Way to park-and-ride): Approved. Shared cost with Hadco if design-build option is selected. Motion: Paul, second: Paige; unanimous.
  • Item 12 – Resolution #2025-52 (Appointment to Metropolitan Water District Board): Approved. Brad appointed to replace Lauren, who is retiring. Motion: Paul, second: Heather; unanimous.
  • Item 13 – Resolution #2025-55 (American Fork-Dry Creek Watershed Agreement with NRCS): Approved. The city provides real property rights (estimated $3 million for culverts and $1.2 million for right-of-way) while NRCS funds design and construction. Saratoga Springs may join later. Motion: Chris, second: Heather; unanimous.
  • Item 14 – Closed Meeting: Approved (5-0) to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation.

Meeting Transcript

I know they're they're on their way, they're at an earlier meeting we had at 445, so uh they should be here shortly. Uh so I'd like to welcome everybody to our city council meeting. The date is July 22nd, uh 2025. Uh it is 541. And uh we do, as a matter of roll call. I mentioned we do have uh three of our council members here, the two that are not should be here shortly, and I I I anticipate that will happen. Uh we do like to start out with uh an opening prayer, and I ask Chris if he would do that today. Our dear Heavenly Father, we come before thee this evening with gratitude in our hearts for the uh blessings that those granted unto us, and we thank you, Father, for the opportunity to gather together as a community and as a council to discuss the issues that are before us this evening. And we are thankful, Father, for the opportunity to discuss and to give insight and to uh make these decisions. And we thank thee for um the opportunity that some have had to go to the reservoir this night and to review that and pray that we'll all be able to have a chance to go see that wonderful uh facility and the progress that's being made. We pray, Father, for our first responders and their families and for our military and their families as well. We pray that thou may watch over them and bless them. And we ask thee to bless those around the country who've been impacted significantly by natural disasters and floods, and pray that thou be with them and and bless us in our area, Father, to show our gratitude for that which we have and always have a willing heart to serve one another. We pray thy spirit to be with us this evening and do so in the name of the son Jesus Christ. Thank you very much. Okay, we have three uh presentations today. Item 2.1 is the presentation on pressurized irrigation uh water rights, and this is mostly just for discussion right now, correct? Yes, we're really preliminary, and I'll invite Fred Billpott to come up. He has a short presentation. So you know, we talk about this a lot where uh the state a couple of years ago was required us to meter all pressurized irrigation connections. Um and we're working on doing that. I think out of the 14,000 connect unmetered connections that we had, I think they've probably gotten a little over half of those done. Um but there's also a process of getting radials installed so that they'll read and getting those into our software system. So we're still very early in the process. Uh what Fred's waiting for now is uh to get for us to get some good data and get some good reads over a period of time so we can do some analysis. So Fred Philpot is with uh the firm of uh Lewis Robertson and Burningham, and he's doing our uh rate study to help us get this figured out. Um now his computer's fried. Yep. And while he's working on that, let me ask you a question, Dean, because we have what roughly 27,000 units in town. Yeah, yeah, maybe not maybe not quite that many. I don't know. Less Alison, no, no, 18,000. 18,000. Is there a lot of homes that not on the Nox 27 Matt Howard? Yeah. And so every connection has a power meter, but sometimes some are masters. That makes sense. I was just trying to understand you know how many we were actually installing. Yeah, because I told somebody the other day, you know, what I thought the number of homes were, but you're right. If they're master meter, we're not installing that many. Okay. Um so what I wanted Fred to come and just introduce this. Again, we don't really have data or there's nothing really to propose, but he's gonna show what some other cities have done. Alpine's already in the process uh already does this, Spanish Fork, Springville, Saratoga Springs already do. And so he's gonna, and there's just some variety with this. So what I'm interested in, if you have opinions now, because there's sometimes you can see there's a bit of a trade-off between having a simple rate that's easy to understand or understand versus having a more complicated rate that is maybe more fair, but might be different, more difficult to understand. I'm also curious to know if you have any opinion on you know do you think it makes sense to have a certain portion of the city, get that really good and comfortable where we feel and then implement through the rest of the city or try to do the whole city at once, and the only reason it's scarier to do the whole city at once is because if there's something that we've missed on the study and it's easier to fix it if it's a subset of that rather than the whole city. And there's not really a right or wrong answer. Again, we're not looking for a decision or anything. I just want Fred to introduce some of this and get any any thoughts that you had, because this is going to be a process that's going to be go ongoing for a couple of years.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com